Every time I think I've got it with GD style of reading, I trip over some nuance or change my mind. Grrr! I've been working through a variety of sources including Book T with its examples, and I could use some input on this.

Have at you!*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Book T

If a card of the suit of Wands falls between a Cup and a Sword, the Sword modifies and connects the Wand with the Cup, so that it is not weakened by its vicinity, but is modified by the influence of both cards; therefore fairly strong.

Cup Wand Sword
I'll buy that; the Sword strengthens the Wand so the Wand (and Sword together?) overcomes the cup. This (Wand) would be a somewhat strong card.

If the middle card was a Pentacle, would the Cup act as a connecting card and have a similar effect, in that the Pentacle would end up as a moderately strong card?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Book T

But if a card pass between two which are naturally contrary, it is not affected by either much, as a Wand between a Sword and a Pentacle which latter, being Air and Earth, are contrary and therefore weaken each other.

Sword Wand Pentacle
Opposing elements in the modifier positions cancel each other out. I get that too (although as worded in the Golden Dawn book, link reads as connection).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Book T

Here the question being of the Wand, this card is not to be noticed as forming a link between the Sword and Pentacle.

I'm a little confused because in the first example, the Sword on the outside is a connecting card. In this second example, the Wand card in the middle is referred to as not being a connecting card. Is there some specific rule that I'm missing that determines WHICH card can be connector, or does it not matter, because the idea of all three in a connection is what counts? (I'd guess the latter).

Moving on to permutations...

Cup Wand Sword -> somewhat strong, per above.

Cup Wand Wand -> I could read this two ways. Going by what I've learned from supertarot and phb's book, I would read the Wands as overwhelming the weakened water card. Now that I've studied Book T, I would have to say the Cup and outer Wand cancel out for pure GD rules, leaving the middle Wand with its default meaning (not stronger or weaker). Thoughts?

Cup Wand Earth -> This is the one that's given me the most confusion. Via supertarot and phb, the Wand is weakened because it's surrounded by passive elements. Going by Book T, I don't know what rule would apply here, if any. Chris Monnastre (Golden Dawn Journal 1) says that "two cards negative in suit to the center card weaken the center card's interpretation". This supports phb, and suggests the Wand is weak here. This approach does make sense, but it bugs me that I can't piece it out of Book T. Can anyone clarify this for me?

Hmm, writing this out here really helped clarify my thoughts.

One more thing: how much of the cards meaning do you blend in with the main card? Going by supertarot and phb book lessons, all three cards in the triad are blended in. When I study the Book T examples, blending seems fairly arbitrary to me. Sometimes all three cards give to the meaning, sometimes it seems that only the center card is used, and sometimes it seems the surrounding suit is used without meaning. An example of the latter is the 5 of cups negative meaning not mattering, because there are three Cup (or water element) cards in a row that suggest happiness or pleasure per the center card. Forgive me for not referring to the exact example as laid out.

Perhaps this is where the dictum comes in: "Analyze rigidly and interpret flexibly."

Disclaimer: I started out learning with phb's material before going to the Book T source.

* Bonus points if you can identify the 32-bit era videogame this quote is from.

I am also just here to agree with and second all of your questions. For emphasis. I like to complain about answers I don't have. I've never found anything at all on practical reading on the GD method, save your two sources, and they leave confusion.

The triad of cups confuses me as well. Because the other two cup cards are so cool, just forget about the 5 of cups, DISAPPOINTMENT? When I get traids like these I reall do wonder myself, if we're supposed to ignore any ill meaning, the artwork on the 5 of cups of heartache really is a distracter.
This really does bring in the question.. is every singular card meaning present, or do you just blend them all?

I've noticed paul hughes baron says he gets to the point where he mainly reads by EDS and doesn't use card meanings at all- if it gets to that point, I don't understand why you don't just use a deck with only each element printed on it.

I am assuming and hoping that just with further study of kaballah, astrology, alchemy, and all the subtlies of the GD method, everything will be so clear when you lay the cards as what to interpret what, then. That's my guess.

If there's anyone else out there though who's got very clear answers on this for us, or even ideas as to a method, please post something productive..

I also hope maybe this can start some interest in study groups on not just card meanings.. but spread interpretations, with the Golden Dawn method. You know.. some practical emphasis on all these studies...Wouldn't that be lovely for everyone, learning all together?

Perhaps this is where the dictum comes in: "Analyze rigidly and interpret flexibly."

I think this is the most important thing. I've not studied the rules enough to offer much advice, and have been mostly happy with reconciling the elements intuitively as part of each reading. Often the features on the cards themselves give some clue to to how I see the elements reacting with/against each other. For example, 4 Wands (Fire, Venus in Aries, Male and Female energy) might be more compatible with 2 Cups (Water, Venus in Cancer, Lord of Love) than another Water card that doesn't have Venus moderating between them and the shared theme of relationship. I guess I tend to go with the version that best fits the question/reading.

Quote:

Cup Wand Sword
I'll buy that; the Sword strengthens the Wand so the Wand (and Sword together?) overcomes the cup. This (Wand) would be a somewhat strong card.

I've also seen people interpret this as the Water puts out the Fire and so only the Air card remains to be read. Just to muddy the waters further

I've noticed paul hughes baron says he gets to the point where he mainly reads by EDS and doesn't use card meanings at all- if it gets to that point, I don't understand why you don't just use a deck with only each element printed on it.

I remember seeing that too, and thinking similar thoughts. But I don't recall if that's the point he was striving for; I think he uses EDs to determine "energy flow" in a situation, but I can't thing that you'd only be able to read how energy is flowing without attaching more meaning. After all, what makes this fire/air combo different from that fire/air combo? (It's Barlow, btw, not Baron.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by similia

For example, 4 Wands (Fire, Venus in Aries, Male and Female energy) might be more compatible with 2 Cups (Water, Venus in Cancer, Lord of Love) than another Water card that doesn't have Venus moderating between them and the shared theme of relationship. I guess I tend to go with the version that best fits the question/reading.

I want to jokingly say my head hurts now... that does make sense, although I'm not sure if it fits exactly with the Book T example.

Zalewski, in his yellow brick, says that he is presenting an abridged version of the Book T example because the Mathers sample reading is adequate, and it has a lot of hidden instructions in it. (Paraphrasing; italics mine.) I guess those hidden instructions apply to these strange cases.

I also note in the sampler reading that an older man (King) is interperted as being popular with women, because his card is surrounded by a couple of Knaves (ie. Princesses) and a Queen. That seems to be a purely intuitive function to me. Not that there is anything wrong with that; but it's a good example of working beyond what is explicitly written in the GD procedures.

Quote:

I've also seen people interpret this as the Water puts out the Fire and so only the Air card remains to be read. Just to muddy the waters further

Bad Similia! No cookie for you!

Going by supertarot I would rate Air as the strongest card, but I wouldn't be extinguishing that Fire even then, myself.

I just realized, I never posted the game's name for that quote I used in my first post.

On the off chance that you lost sleep over this (hahaha ) it is "Castlevania: Symphony of the Night" for the original Playstation. It's considered a classic game and something of a masterpiece in its genre, although it was also known for some particularly cheesy dialog at the beginning, which may or may not have been due to the localization from Japanese.

A source for a GD style reading would be "Women of the Golden Dawn: Rebels and Priestesses". A good book in itself, has one (or more, I haven't read the book in ages) recorded example of a reading done for/between Farr and Yeats(?). I can't remember the specifics, but it seemed to be just the first "phase" or two of the OOTK. Sorry for not being able to recall better, but I thought I'd point to that book and hope I'm not completely off...
For the water putting out the fire reference, think what happens though... steam; hot airy water (emphasis on the air, for the sword).

Every time I think I've got it with GD style of reading, I trip over some nuance or change my mind. Grrr! I've been working through a variety of sources including Book T with its examples, and I could use some input on this.

Have at you!*

Cup Wand Sword
I'll buy that; the Sword strengthens the Wand so the Wand (and Sword together?) overcomes the cup. This (Wand) would be a somewhat strong card.

If the middle card was a Pentacle, would the Cup act as a connecting card and have a similar effect, in that the Pentacle would end up as a moderately strong card?

That's the way I do it; The problem comes from the water - earth combination, which is never explicitly stated in the rules at the start. You can notice this if you make a 4x4 grid with the elements on the two sides and then fill in the relationships where they intersect based on Liber T's description at the start. Water/Earth is not mentioned.

Quote:

Sword Wand Pentacle
Opposing elements in the modifier positions cancel each other out. I get that too (although as worded in the Golden Dawn book, link reads as connection).

I'm a little confused because in the first example, the Sword on the outside is a connecting card. In this second example, the Wand card in the middle is referred to as not being a connecting card. Is there some specific rule that I'm missing that determines WHICH card can be connector, or does it not matter, because the idea of all three in a connection is what counts? (I'd guess the latter).

Basically you look at the two outer cards first. If they are contrary to each other (air and earth or water and fire) then they cancel each other out and you just read the middle card. If they *don't* cancel each other out then you see if they affect the middle card.

Quote:

Moving on to permutations...

Cup Wand Sword -> somewhat strong, per above.

Cup Wand Wand -> I could read this two ways. Going by what I've learned from supertarot and phb's book, I would read the Wands as overwhelming the weakened water card. Now that I've studied Book T, I would have to say the Cup and outer Wand cancel out for pure GD rules, leaving the middle Wand with its default meaning (not stronger or weaker). Thoughts?

Cup and Wand do not cancel each other out in pure GD rules. Cards only have a chance to cancel each other out if they are on either side of the middle card. This is another "bridging" situation where the wand would be weakened by the outer cup, its opposite, but it is supported to an extent by the sword so it's not as weak as it would be.

Cup Wand Earth -> This is the one that's given me the most confusion. Via supertarot and phb, the Wand is weakened because it's surrounded by passive elements. Going by Book T, I don't know what rule would apply here, if any. Chris Monnastre (Golden Dawn Journal 1) says that "two cards negative in suit to the center card weaken the center card's interpretation". This supports phb, and suggests the Wand is weak here. This approach does make sense, but it bugs me that I can't piece it out of Book T. Can anyone clarify this for me?

The case of cup wand earth. (earth being pentacle or an earth trump e.g. devil):

We have here (water fire earth).
The fire card is "pretty weak". By pretty weak I mean it is not as weak as water fire water, but it's not as strong as water fire air. It's a kind of grey area how "weak" this is.

What's happening is that the fire is weakened by the water, but it gets "some" support from the earth, or at least isn't further weakened by it, so we end up with a centre card which is weak but not totally weak!

A lot of sites that use what they call elemental dignity are not rigidly applying the GD methods. One that definitely is, and helped me a lot is:

One more thing: how much of the cards meaning do you blend in with the main card? Going by supertarot and phb book lessons, all three cards in the triad are blended in. When I study the Book T examples, blending seems fairly arbitrary to me. Sometimes all three cards give to the meaning, sometimes it seems that only the center card is used, and sometimes it seems the surrounding suit is used without meaning. An example of the latter is the 5 of cups negative meaning not mattering, because there are three Cup (or water element) cards in a row that suggest happiness or pleasure per the center card. Forgive me for not referring to the exact example as laid out.

Perhaps this is where the dictum comes in: "Analyze rigidly and interpret flexibly."

I absolutely agree with you on the analyze rigidly, interpret flexibly here. It's an area that I am still struggling with myself. Particularly when trying to make use of other information, and reversals/ill-dignification.

For example, with a cup wand cup, the wand is definitely "ill-dignified", so you can look at the ill-dignified meaning for that card, but when you want to factor in the actual cups on the outside as part of the explanation, do you say that the normal meaning of the cups is what is causing the ill-dignified meaning of the wand, or do you look at the ill-dignified meaning of the cups themselves to see the factors that are causing the main meaning?

As an example, let's say one of the cups is 6 of cups and the wand is 10 of wands. Let's say that the ill-dignified meaning of 10 of wands as we have decided it is "swiftness in evil" if we were being so basic as to select the most apposite meaning from the GD's "menu". Now, the 6 of cups has a normal meaning of "commencement of steady increase, gain and pleasure", but an ill-dignified one of "sometimes thankless and presumptuous ... (etc)".

So do we say that a commencement of steady gain (maybe your new job!) is causing a "swiftness in evil" or do we say someone being thankless and presumptuous is causing it?

It's all too easy to pick the meaning which fits best in the situation, but is this the way it should be done? Do ill-dignified meanings only apply to the actual card that is ill-dignified, rather than the cards which ill-dignify it?

And then you've got the problem if you're using a deck, and you want to use its own book for meanings and not use Liber-T. Are reversed meanings totally interchangeable with ill-dignified ones?

There's a lot to think about and obviously I'm not set in my ways yet, having come back to tarot only this year, but maybe not being set in my ways is a good thing. It would be nice to have more confidence in my readings though!